Preliminaries
As an initial introduction of the emotion lexicon in Mandarin, some preliminary accounts are given here with reference to the formal contrasts in English mentioned in Section 1. The most noticeable difference is that there is no morphological distinction between verbal vs. adjectival EPs in Mandarin, since stative verbs and adjectives are formally identical. There is, nevertheless, an important and consistent grammatical distinction between stative vs. eventive predication (cf. Chao 1968; Li and Thompson 1981). Stative predicates are compatible with degree modification, typically taking the default degree modifier 很 hen “very, fairly,” as a crucial indicator of scalar evaluation (Liu and Chang 2012)Footnote 12. As exemplified below, most EPs (such as 羨慕 xianmu “envy”) tend to occur with the evaluative marker 很 hen, which is an indicator of stativity and less compatible with a telic physical action verb (such as 打 da “hit”)Footnote 13. On the other hand, a stative EP is less compatible with the eventive, verb-final perfective marker 了 le, which marks the actualization of a temporally bounded event (Liu 2015):
-
(15)
Stative predicates with degree marker 很 hen
我很羨慕/*打他
wo__hen__xianmu/*da __ta.
1p.sg__DEG__envy/hit__3p.sg
I quite envy/*hit him.
-
(16)
Eventive predicates with perfective marker 了 le
我打/*羨慕了他
wo__da/* xianmu__le__ta.
1p.sg__hit/*envy__LE__3p.sg
I hit him/*(done) envied him.
The majority of Mandarin EPs are stative in nature as they are compatible with degree evaluation. But a degree marker is not obligatory with stative EPs, if the verbal use is to be stressedFootnote 14. Given that there appears to be a functional division between 很hen “quite, fairly,” marking evaluative predication, and the perfective/inchoative marker 了 le, marking eventive predication, EPs can be divided as to their co-occurrence preference with the two markers. Lexical variations can be found with a group of Stimulus-subject verbs that tend to align more with eventive predication, indicating a semantic departure from stativity, which will be further discussed in the next section.
Given that there is no morphological difference between stative verbs and adjectives in Mandarin, the verbal vs. adjectival contrast lexically coded in English (envy vs. be envious of, as illustrated in 2 above) is formally neutralized and indistinguishable in Mandarin. For example, the abovementioned EP 羨慕 xianmu can be taken as either “envy” or “be envious of,” especially with the presence of a degree marker.
Along with the neutralization of verbal vs. adjectival distinction, the transitive vs. intransitive contrast that is strictly lexicalized in English is also relaxed in Mandarin. The different behaviors of Mandarin EPs can be discussed in relation to subject-role selection. First, Experiencer-subject EPs are more prominent and abundant in Mandarin. They correspond nicely to the English Experiencer-subject verbs. Although the majority of them are lexically specified to be either transitive or intransitive, some of them can be used in both ways (with or without a direct object) and allow flexible argument expression. First presented below are some examples of clearly transitive or intransitive EPs:
-
(17)
Experiencer-subject EPs:
-
a.
Intransitive:
-
我很生氣/緊張/沮喪
-
wo__hen__shengqi/jingzhang/jusang.
-
1.sg__DEG__pleased/nervous/depressed.
-
I am angry/nervous/depressed.
-
b.
Transitive
-
我很喜歡/欣賞/討厭他
-
wo__hen__xihuan/xingshang/taoyan__ta
-
1.sg__DEG__admire/like/dislike__3p.sg
-
I like/admire/dislike him.
The transitive EPs, such as 欣賞 xingshang “admire,” normally denote a directed feeling that require the presence of a direct object, typically taking up the postverbal position. But the object may occasionally be expressed preverbally as an indirect Goal argument, marked by the goal marker 對 dui “to”. When this happens, the transitive vs. intransitive distinction may be blurred, since intransitive EPs denoting a directed feeling (such as 生氣 shengqi “angry”) may also take an indirect goal:
-
(18)
Indirect goal with transitive and intransitive EPs
-
我對他很生氣intr/欣賞tr
-
wo__dui__ ta__hen__shengqi/xingshang
-
1p.sg__to__3p.sg__DEG__angry/admire
-
I am angry at/admire him.
More importantly, the transitive vs. intransitive contrast can also be blurred with a small group of Experiencer-subject EPs that may denote inherent or directed feelings. These EPs may be used transitively or intransitively, without any change on lexical forms:
-
(19)
The same Exp-subject verb for intransitive and transitive uses:
-
a.
Intransitive:
我很害怕/擔心
wo__hen__haipa/danxin.
1p.sg__DEG__scared/worried
I am scared/worried.
-
b.
Transitive:
我很害怕/擔心他
wo__hen__haipa/danxin__ta
1p.sg__DEG__fear/worry__3p.sg
I fear/worry (about) him.
While Experiencer-subject verbs are abundant and diverse in Mandarin, the picture of Stimulus-subject verbs is totally different. It is difficult and problematic to find lexical equivalents of the majority of English Stimulus-subject verbs, such as please, excite, frustrate, in the Mandarin lexicon. Although a few Stimulus-subject verbs can be found as exemplified below, the Mandarin lexicon in general dis-prefers to lexicalize a Stimulus as subject.
-
(20)
Stimulus-subject EPs:
-
a.
Intransitive
-
這本書很枯燥/有趣/恐怖
-
zhe-ben__shu__hen__kuzao/youqu/kongbu
-
this-CL__book__DEG__dull/fun/horrible
-
The book is dull/interesting/dispiriting.
-
b.
Transitive
-
這本書很吸引/感動/激勵我
-
zhe-ben__shu__hen__xiyin/gandong/jili__wo.
-
this-CL__book__DEG__attract/touch/encourage__me
-
The book attracts/touches/encourages me.
The EPs listed here are among the few Stimulus-subject verbs that are fully lexicalized and ready to predicate a Stimulus. However, to express “He pleases me” in Mandarin, no lexicalized verb can be readily used to render an equivalent transitive sentence. Mandarin has to resort to a causative pattern that converts an Experiencer-subject verb into the Stimulus-predicating construction, as shown below:
-
(21)
他讓我很高興/興奮/挫折
ta__rang__wo__hen__gaoxing/xingfen/cuozhe.
3p.sg__CAU__1p.sg__DEG__pleased/excited/frustrated
He made me pleased/excited/frustrated.
The causative construction is overtly marked with a causative morpheme, 讓 rang, 令 ling, 使 shi, or 叫 jiao
Footnote 15, which serves to signal the causal relation whereby a Stimulus-causer “causes” an Experiencer-causee to be in an emotional state, expressed by an Experiencer-subject EP. This causative pattern is highly productive in Mandarin and semantically requires a Stimulus as the subject-causerFootnote 16 and an Experiencer as the object-causee. As also seen in 13 above, Experiencer-subject EPs can all enter the construction when a Stimulus takes on the subject-causer position. What is more revealing is that in order to coin the adjectival counterparts of the missing verbs, such as pleasing, exciting, and disappointing, the causative template can be “simplified” with a morphologically preserved generic human noun 人 ren “person,” in the form of [CAU-person-VExp-subj]:
-
(22)
這個消息令人高興/令人興奮/令人失望
zhe-ge__xiaoxi__ling-ren-gaoxing/ling-ren-xingfen/ling-ren-shiwang
this-CL__news__CAU-person-pleased/CAU-person-excited/CAU-person-disappointed
The news is pleasing/exciting/disappointing.
Due to the lack of Stimulus-subject verbs in Mandarin, the causative pattern is utilized as a grammatical strategy to allow the shift of subject roles. What we see here is that while Stimulus-subject predication is lexically encoded in English, it is mostly done at the constructional level in Chinese. This points to an interesting and significant departure in lexicalization patterns, as will be further discussed in the section on subject role shift.
The preliminary introduction shows some unique features of Mandarin EPs. First, degree modification is compatible with Mandarin emotion predication, neutralizing the difference between stative verbs and adjectives. This prepares further discussion of the stative-eventive distinction that may be lexically distinguished in Mandarin. Secondly, Mandarin seems to allow more flexibility in argument expression and one lexical form may be mapped to more than one grammatical function, which leads to a further discussion of the range of form-meaning mapping relations manifested in polysemous EPs. Thirdly, Chinese is apparently more limited in lexicalizing Stimulus-subject verbs and it utilizes constructional means to remedy the missing link, which leads to a further discussion of the lexical-constructional variations characteristic of the Mandarin emotion lexicon.
Formal marking of the stative vs. eventive distinction
Relevant to the formal marking of semantic distinctions captured in 14 above, Mandarin has a more obvious way to mark the stative vs. eventive distinction. Given that stative EPs are evaluative in nature and there is no morphological distinction between verbal and adjectival uses, the presence or absence of a degree marker, given its scalar nature as discussed in Kennedy and McNally (2005), seems to be the key indicator for a more gradable adjectival use or a more eventive verbal useFootnote 17. In the corpus, the majority of EPs take some kind of degree adjunct, either preverbally or postverbally. Below are two more examples of degree marking:
-
(23)
Degree modification with intransitive EPs:
-
a.
Preverbal:
-
那位阿婆非常生氣
-
na-wei__apo__feichang__shengqi.
-
that-CL__old__woman__extraordinarily__angry.
-
That old woman was extraordinarily angry.
-
b.
Postverbal:
-
阿滿心中委屈萬分
-
aman__xin-zhong__weiqu__wanfen
-
NAME__heart-in__wronged__deeply
-
Aman was deeply aggrieved in his heart.
Intransitive EPs are used predominantly with a degree marker or a resultative extent. Over the 617 predicate uses of 高興 gaoxing “be glad, pleased” in Sinica Corpus, less than 6 % (35 out of 617) of the cases do not have a degree marker or a resultative complementFootnote 18. Transitive EPs tend to be more equally distributed with or without degree modification. Among the 114 tokens of 羨慕 xianmu “envy” in Sinica Corpus 3.0, about 40 % of them (47 out of 114) take some sort of a degree marker. When the degree marker is absent, the predication is taken to be more eventive and change-related:
-
(24)
Cases without 很 hen “very, fairly”:
-
a.
Inchoative change
客人高興了,會賞你錢
keren__gaoxing__le, hui__shang__ni__qian.
customer__glad__LE, will__offer__you__money
If the customer is pleased, (he) will offer you a big tip.
-
b.
Transitive relation
他羨慕院子裡的大公雞
ta__xianmu__yuanzi__li__de__da-gongji
3p.sg__envy__yard__in__DE__big-rooster
He envied the rooster in the yard.
The presence of the degree modifier is a clear indicator of stativity, which is in line with Jackendoff’s observation that emotional predicates share the semantic core [BE X]. While the majority of Mandarin EPs are stative and compatible with the degree-evaluative 很 hen, there is, however, a special group of EPs that may be lexically eventive. These verbs are morphologically verb-resultative (V-R) compounds, such as 激怒 jinu “irritate,” 惹火 rehuo “infuriate,” 惹惱 renao “provoke,” which may not occur so readily with a degree marker, but often collocate with the perfective or inchoative aspect marker le:
-
(25)
Eventive verbs with agentive subject:
-
a.
??這個消息很激怒/惹火/惹惱他
??zhe-ge__xiaoxi__hen__jinu/rehuo/renao__ ta.
this-CL__news__DEG__irritate/infuriate/provoke__3p.sg.
#This news highly irritated/infuriated/provoked him.
-
b.
這個消息激怒/惹火/惹惱了他
zhe-ge__ xiaoxi__jinu/rehuo/renao__le__ta.
this-CL__news__irritate/infuriate/provoke__LE__3p.sg.
This news irritated/infuriated/provoked him.
These verbs exemplify the lexicalized predicates that morphologically encode a salient impact or change of state in the form of V-RFootnote 19, which is semantically less compatible with the indicator of stativity (很 hen), but prefers the inchoative/perfective aspectual marker 了 le. The V-R compounds stand out as a distinct set of EPs that are semantically eventive with a lexically assured change of state, normally indicating a higher degree of agentivity and affectedness. Although the subject may not always be human and volitional, the transitive event constantly collocates with the aspectual marker 了 le, which is associated with eventive predication and profiles a temporal boundedness. This group of EPs shows that the Mandarin emotion lexicon is sensitive to the stative-eventive distinction as already mentioned and illustrated in 5 above.
Moreover, the semantic distinction can be best illustrated with another group of Stimulus-subject EPs which are morphologically V-V compounds, such as 吸引 xiyin “attract,” 刺激 ciji “stimulate,” and 打擾 darao “bother.” These verbs may be stative or eventive, depending on the actual use:
-
(26)
Stimulus-subject transitive verbs:
-
a.
Stative with degree marker 很 hen
這件事很吸引/刺激/打擾他
zhe-jian__shi__hen__xiyin/ciji/darao__ta.
this-CL__matter__DEG__attract/stimulate/bother__3p.sg
This matter quite attracts/stimulates/bothers him.
-
b.
Eventive/inchoative with perfective marker 了 le
這件事吸引/刺激/打擾了他
zhe-jian__shi__xiyin/ciji/darao__ le__ ta.
this-CL__matter__attract/stimulate/bother__LE__3p.sg
This matter attracted/stimulated/bothered him.
This stative vs. eventive semantic distinction may be lexically implicit in English, but it is more explicitly encoded in Mandarin, corresponding to morphological and constructional differentiations. What needs to be noted here is that the lexicalized eventive verbs in the form of V-R must denote a different semantic relation from the traditional Stimulus-to-Experiencer relation.
As shown in the following example, there seems to be a gradation from highly stative to highly eventive predications that can be formally distinguished with lexical-constructional variations in Mandarin. In the following examples, the converted causative use of a stative Experiencer-subject verb 害怕 haipa “fear” is put in contrast to the three different uses of an inherently eventive verb 嚇 xia “scare, frighten, startle,” ranging from indirect causation, to direct transitivity, and to volitional deliberation. The verb 嚇 xia collocates constantly with an event instantiation phase marker —跳 yi-tiao “one-jump” to predicate an individuated event that can be expressed in a stative, causative pattern with a Stimulus-causer and Experiencer-causee 27b, in a eventive, transitive pattern with a directly affected object 27c:
-
(27) a.
打雷讓老王害怕
dalei__rang__lao-wang__haipa
thunder__CAUSE__Old-Wang__frightened
Thunder causes Old-Wang to have fear.
-
b.
打雷讓老王嚇了一跳
dalei__rang__lao-wang__xia__le__yi-tiao
thunder__CAUSE__Old-Wang__scare__LE__one-jump
Thunder made Old-Wang scared with a jump.
-
c.
打雷嚇了老王一跳
dalei__xia__le__lao-wang__yi-tiao
thunder__scare__LE__Old-Wang__one-jump
Thunder startled Old-Wang with a jump.
The direct impact encoded in the verb can be seen more clearly from the volitional use with a deliberating human agentFootnote 20:
-
(28)
Volitional uses of 嚇xia with human subjects:
-
a.
他故意嚇老王, 但是沒嚇到
ta__guyi__xia__lao-wang, danshi__mei__xia-dao.
3p.sg__deliberately__scare__Old-Wang, but__NEG__scare-arrive
He deliberately tried to scare Old Wang, but did not succeed.’
-
b.
不要嚇我!
buyao__xia__wo
don’t__scare__1p.sg
Don’t scare me!
Relevant to the questions raised in 14, the range of semantic variations illustrated above is manifested with a range of lexical-constructional variations. Such variations are motivated by a gradation from highly stative to highly eventive distinctions in the uses of Mandarin EPs. In the last example with a human subject, it is quite clear that the subject plays a more volitional and instigating role, different from the non-active, non-sentient role of a Stimulus. This role distinction is relative to the extent of affectedness instilled on the theme participant and should be recognized as a lexical semantic distinction. As will be clear in the discussion of the thematic relation involved, the volitional subject may be more appropriately viewed as an Affector, if not a prototypical agent.
Constructional variation with subject role shift
As already seen clearly, the selected role of the subject is a crucial factor in the classification of emotional predicates. Different subject roles will trigger different lexical and constructional patterns. When the subject role is shifted, languages may resort to various grammatical means to signal the accompanied semantic shift. English, as an inflectional language, makes heavy use of derivational morphology to signal semantic correlations (e.g. interesting vs. interested). In an analytic language like Mandarin, it is constructional variation that is heavily used to signal the change. Thus, subject role shift is directly accompanied with constructional alternation. As already mentioned above, an Experiencer-subject predicate normally occurs in the stative-evaluative construction, typically marked by a degree marker in the form [Exp-DEG-Verb]. And when the subject shifts to a Stimulus, an overt causative construction is used, with a causative marker 讓 rang, 令 ling, 使 shi, or 叫 jiao, in the pattern [Stim-CAU-Exp-DEG-V]. For stative predication, the subject role shift is accompanied with a constructional alternation from stative to causative constructions:
-
(29)
Stative-Causative alternation

As noted earlier, the causative construction is productive and constantly drawn upon to coin the missing Stimulus-subject EPs, due to the lack of lexical Stimulus-subject verbs such as please, excite, and interest. The closest equivalents of pleasing, exciting and interesting are semi-lexicalized causatives, derived from the causative template with a generic causee in the form [CAU-person-V], such as 令人高興 ling-ren-gaoxing [CAU-person-happy], for “pleasing”. This impersonal causative pattern behaves like other stative predicates since it can also take a preceding degree marker such as 很 hen
Footnote 21, but it is not yet fully lexicalized (see discussion in Section 3.5). It provides a grammatical means for shifting the subject role from Experiencer to Stimulus while maintaining a semantic link using the same verb.
What is more striking about subject role shift in Mandarin is that while there is a special group of dual-subject EPs which may predicate either an Experiencer or a Stimulus, in a formally unmarked, non-derived way. For example, the intransitive predicate 無聊 wuliao (“be boring or bored”) may be used alternatively with an Experiencer or Stimulus without formal changes. Thus, the sentence below is potentially ambiguous, meaning either “He is bored” or “He is boring”:
-
(30)
Dual meanings with intransitive verb 無聊 wuliao
Given the dual subjecthood, 無聊 wuliao may still be used in the above-mentioned causative pattern as other Experiencer-subject EPs, to highlight a Stimulus-causer, as in 這本書令人無聊 zhe-ben shu ling-ren-wuliao [CAU-person-bored] “The book is boring.”
Another dual-subject verb 討厭 taoyan “detest/loathsome” predicates a Stimulus in its intransitive use, but an Experiencer in its transitive use. Like other dual-subject EPs, it may also be used in the productive causative pattern. Thus, the verb may alternate in three different constructions:
-
(31)
Three-way alternation with 討厭 taoyan “detest/be detestable”
-
a.
Stimulus-Intransitive
這本書很討厭
[zhe-ben__shu]Stim__hen__taoyan.
this-CL__book__DEG__detestable
This book is annoying/detestable.
-
b.
Experiencer-Transitive
我很討厭這本書
[wo]Exp__hen__taoyan__zhe-ben__shu..
1p.sg__DEG__detest__this-CL__book
I dislike this book.
-
c.
Stimulus-Causative
這本書讓我很討厭
[zhe-ben__shu]Stim__rang__wo__hen__taoyan.
this-CL__book__CAU__1p.sg__DEG__detest
The book makes me dislike it.
There are other sets of dual-subject EPs that associate different subject roles with varied syntactic patterns. The verbs such as 委屈 weiqu “aggreive,” 困擾 kunrao “puzzle,” 感動 gandong “touch” predicate an Experiencer when used intransitively, but a Stimulus head when used transitively. As exemplified below, these verbs can participate in the Stative-Causative alternation and the Stimulus-subject transitive pattern, be it stative (with the degree marker hen) or eventive (with the perfective marker 了 le). All together, they may participate in a four-way constructional alternation: the stative intransitive 32a, the stative causative 32b, the stative transitive 32c, and the eventive transitive 32d:
-
(32)
Four-way alternation with dual-subject predicates:
-
a.
Intransitive with Experiencer-subject
他很委屈/困擾/感動
ta__hen__weiqu/kunrao/gandong.
3p.sg__DEG__aggrieved/confused/touched
He’s aggrieved/confused/contented/touched.
-
b.
Causative with Stimulus-subject
這件事讓他很委屈/困擾/感動
zhe-jian__shi__rang__ta__hen__weiqu/kunrao/gandong.
this-CL__matter__CAU__3p.sg__DEG__aggrieved/confused/touched
This matter makes him aggrieved/confused/touched.
-
c.
Stative transitive with Stimulus-subject
這件事很委屈/困擾/感動他
zhe-jian__shi__hen__weiqu/kunrao/gandong__ta
this-CL__matter__DEG__aggrieve/confuse/touch__3p.sg
This matter fairly aggrieves/confuses/touches him.
-
d.
Eventive transitive with Stimulus-subject
這件事委屈/困擾/感動了他
zhe-jian__shi__weiqu/kunrao/gandong__le__ta
this-CL__matter__aggrieve/confuse/touch__LE__3p.sg
This matter aggrieved/confused/touched him.
The abovementioned verbs are semantically and syntactically diverse, challenging the traditional lexical divisions based on semantic roles and argument expressions. What is of particular interest here is that the dual-subject verbs are able to predicate both Experiencer and Stimulus, breaking down the basic line between Experiencer-subject vs. Stimulus-subject verb classification.
Moreover, the rather static notions of Stimulus and Experiencer may not be adequate to describe the relation implicated in the distinct group of EPs in the form of V-R compounds, e.g., 激怒 jinu “infuriate, irritate,” 惹火 rehuo “enrage, anger,” and 惹惱 renao “anger, exasperat.” These verbs imply an attainable result by the R-component with high affectedness. As already shown above, they are not readily compatible with degree evaluation and prefer to take on the eventive marker 了 le. A further constructional contrast with their passive use can also help to indicate their distinct lexical status. When these verbs are used in a passive construction, with the typical passive marker 被 bei, they rarely allow the addition of degree modification, while verbs that may denote either a stative or eventive meaning, such as 吸引 xiyin “attract” and 刺激 ciji “stimulate”, may optionally take the degree modifier 很 hen, as shown below:
-
(33)
Stative Transitive-Passive alternation: compatible with 很 hen
-
(34)
Eventive Transitive-Passive alternation: incompatible with 很 hen
The distinction with degree modification in the passive constructions, pertaining also to the stative-eventive distinction, can be compared with the adjectival vs. verbal passive distinction in English (with-pp vs. by-pp), as illustrated in 4 above. In English, the semantic distinction is not clear in the active voice but may be syntactically surfaced in the passive version with different prepositions. The verbal passive (with by-PP) may convey a similar function as the Mandarin eventive passive, which signals a more affective relation between the subject and object. This leads to the postulation of a different set of semantic roles, Affector and Affectee, in the next section.
Constructional alternations with subject role shifts bear significant consequences in determining the lexical classes of the predicates. Besides the small group of Stimulus-subject intransitive predicates (e.g., 枯燥 kuzao “dull,” 恐怖 kongbu “horrible” in 20a) that can only be used in the stative intransitive construction without role shifting, we’ve seen six types of predicates that allow a subject-role shift, each associated with a distinct set of constructional alternations:
-
(35)
Six types of role-shifting emotional predicates:
-
a.
verbs with the Stative-Causative alternation as in 29:
lexically specified with an Experiencer-subject:
-
b.
verbs with the Experiencer-Stimulus alternation, as in 30
lexically dual-headed with intransitive Experiencer or Stimulus
-
c.
verbs with the three-way alternation, as in 31
lexically dual-headed with intransitive Stimulus or transitive Experiencer
-
d.
verbs with the four-way alternation, as in 32:
lexically dual-headed with intransitive Experiencer or transitive Stimulus
-
e.
verbs with the stative Transitive-Passive alternations, as 33:
lexically specified with a transitive Stimulus
-
f.
verbs with the eventive Transitive-Passive alternation only, as in 34:
lexically specified with an affecting subject and an attainable result
A finer distinction of the semantic roles of the subject is necessary, as proposed below, to help differentiate the observed variations in the subclasses.
Distinction of thematic roles: Stimulus-Experiencer vs. Affector-Affectee
The fact that a causative structure is called upon to express a Stimulus-subject relation suggests that the role of a Stimulus is taken to be functionally identical to a Causer. This has been mentioned to confirm what Pesetsky (1995: 56) proposed regarding the hierarchy of assigning thematic roles to subjecthood: Causer > Experiencer > Target/Subject matter. The hierarchy helps to point out the essential role of a Causer in emotional predication. When a Stimulus becomes the subject, its semantic function as a Causer is overtly expressed with the overtly marked causative construction in Mandarin. This syntactic strategy with constructional shift strongly suggests that the relation from Stimulus to Experiencer is fundamentally causal.
On the other hand, verbs that participate in the Transitive-Passive alternation are presumably associated with an agent-patient relation or a cluster of Proto-Agent vs. Proto-Patient features (cf. Dowty 1991). As illustrated above, some of these verbs are more stative and compatible with a degree modifier (e.g., 吸引 xiyin “attract” as in 33), but the others are inherently eventive (e.g., 激怒 jinu “infuriate, irritate” as in 34), showing a higher degree of volitionality, telicity, punctuality, control, and dynamic aspectuality, which together indicate higher transitivity (cf. Hopper and Thompson 1984). The following is a comparison of the two types of transitive verbs: the more eventive 激怒 jinu “infuriate” vs. the more stative 吸引 xiyin “attract”:
-
(36)
Features with higher eventivity and agentivity:
-
a.
Volition (with adverbial 故意 guyi “deliberately”):
他故意激怒/?吸引我
ta__guyi__jinu/?xiyin__wo.
3p.sg__deliberately__irritate/?attract__1p.sg
He deliberately infuriated/?attracted me.
-
b.
Telicity/boundedness (with perfective 了 le and frequency 兩次 liangci “twice”):
他激怒/?吸引了我兩次
ta__jinu/?xiyin__le__wo__liangci.
3p.sg__irritate/?attract__LE__1p.sg__twice
He infuriated/?attracted me twice.
-
c.
Punctuality (with adverb of immediacy 一下子 yixiazi “instantly”):
他一下子就激怒/?吸引了我
ta__yixiazi__jiu__jinu/?xiyin__le__wo.
3p.sg__instantly__irritate/?attract__1p.sg
He infuriated/?attracted me in no time.
-
d.
Control (with imperative/prohibitive):
別激怒/?吸引我
bie__jinu/?xiyin__wo!
don’t__irritate/?attract__1p.sg.
Don’t infuriate/?attract me.
-
e.
Dynamic process (with progressive 在 zai):
他在激怒/吸引我
ta__zai__jinu/?xiyin__wo
3p.sg__ASP__irritate/?attract__1p.sg
He is infuriating/?attracting me.
In view of the comparison, we see that finer distinctions of affectedness in terms of realization of change (Beavers 2011, 2013) may be both lexically and grammatically differentiated. Examples with 激怒 jinu “infuriate” apparently allow the subject to exercise more control over the directly affected object. The semantic distinction, as mentioned previously, is referred to by Jackendoff (1991:140) as the stative vs. eventive distinction on Stimulus-subject verbs, and noted in Levin (1993: 191) as agentive vs. non-agentive role distinction. Dowty (1991: 580) attributed the inchoative (his term for “eventive”) use to the entailment of the Proto-Patient property in the object, reminiscent of the accusative marking of Experiencer in the Czech data. In Mandarin, there is even a stronger correlation of the semantic distinction with formal differentiations. The highly change-entailing verbs (e.g., 激怒 jinu “infuriate”) are morphologically distinct as V-R compounds and syntactically distinct in taking dynamic aspectual markers (perfective 了 le or progressive 在 zai). They lexically encode a “change of state” that is morphologically attained with the second component in the sequence of V-R, literally combining an active verb 激 ji “stir” and a resultative 怒 nu “angry” (lit. “stir-anger”).
The entailed “change of state” in the V-R verbs also enables them to occur in the cardinal transitive 把 ba-construction, which profiles a bounded event with an attainable result or extent (c.f. Hopper and Thompson 1984). It is found that the more impact-assuring a verb is, the more likely it is to participate in this highly transitive 把 ba-construction. In the following examples, we see a clear difference between impactive V-R verbs (激怒 jinu “stir-angry” and 惹惱 renao “cause-upset”) and the others:
-
(37)
Occurrence with 把 ba-construction:
他把我激怒/惹火/?吸引/?刺激了
ta__ba__wo__jinu/rehuo/?xiyin/?ciji__le.
3p.sg__BA__1p.sg__irritated/infuriated/?attracted/?stimulated__LE
He has (surely) infuriated/angered/#attracted/#stimulated me.
This distributional difference may add to the evidences that point to a finer distinction of semantic relations. The Mandarin grammar makes it clear that the agentive vs. non-agentive subject roles and the stative vs. eventive predications are lexically and constructionally distinct and may constitute distinct subclasses in the lexicon.
In view of the above distinctions, a separate thematic role for the subject is proposed. It is named “the Affector,” a term inspired by the notion of Effector in Van Valin and Wilkins (1996), referring to a “dynamic participant doing something in the event.” The Effector is quasi-agentive, functioning as an “instigator” or the first CAUSE in a causal sequence. It is argued that Effector is a more basic function underlying similar roles of agent, force, and instrument. Applying the notion of Effector to emotional predication, which involves internal, affective impact, the term Affector is chosen to highlight the affective change it instigates. It can be defined as a dynamic participant doing something for an affective impact on a sentient patient-like goal, the Affectee. The thematic relation between Affector and Affectee is semantically and syntactically distinct from that of Stimulus and Experiencer. It is thus recognized as an alternative way of conceptualizing the causal schema in emotional predication, profiling a more dynamic impact between an affecting force and an affected participant. At the conceptual level, the two thematic relations, Affector-to-Affectee vs. Stimulus-to-Experiencer, can both be mapped unto the proto-schema of causal chain underlying emotional predication, as represented below:
-
(38)
Conceptual schema for stative vs. eventive thematic relations:

The two sets of thematic relations distinguished here represent two alternative ways of conceptualizing and encoding emotional affect. They correspond to two different event types, manifesting the stative vs. eventive distinction. The eventive type, previously taken to be implicit in Stimulus-subject verbs, is now distinguished and labeled with a distinct set of roles, Affector to Affectee. According to Dowty (1991), the identification of “legitimate” kinds of thematic roles should follow at least two criteria: it should be event-dependent, not just perspective-dependent; and it should be relevant to argument selection. In view of the two criteria, the postulation of an Affector, as distinct from a Stimulus, is well-motivated since it indeed correlates to a distinction in event type and argument realization. In the sentence below, Affector can be conceived as a separate argument, which exerts an impact on the Affectee by means of a Stimulus:
-
(39)
老師[Affector]用話[Stimulus]激怒了學生[Affectee]
laoshi [Affector]__yong__hua [Stimulus]__jinu__le__xuesheng[Affectee]
teacher__by__words__irritate__LE__student
The teacher
[Affector]
angered the students
[Affectee]
with his words
[Stimulus].
As evidenced above, the role Affector can be separated from the Stimulus as they may co-occur in the same sentence. The different thematic relations represented above are typically associated with different constructional alternations: Stimulus-Experiencer with the stative-causative alternation, while Affector-Affectee, with Inchoative, Passive, and Ba-constructions:
-
(40)
Constructional alternations typically associated with different thematic frames:
-
a.
<Stimulus, Experiencer>: Stative-Causative alternation
-
Stative:
我[Exp]很擔心他
wo[Exp]__hen__danxin__ta
1p.sg__DEG__worry__3p.sg
I am worried about him.
-
Causative:
他[Exp]讓我很擔心
ta[Stim] __rang__wo__hen__danxin
3p.sg__CAUS__1p.sg__DEG__worry
He made me worried (about him).
-
b.
<Affector, Affectee>: Inchoative, Passive, and ba-construction
-
Inchoative:
他的話激怒了我
tade__hua[Affector] __jinu__le__wo[Affectee]
his__words__infuriate__LE__1p.sg
His words infuriated me.
-
Passive:
我被他的話激怒了
wo[Affectee]__bei__tade__hua__jinu__le
1p.sg__BEI__his__words__anger__LE
I got infuriated by his words.
-
ba-construction:
他的話[Affector]把我激怒了
tade__hua[Affector] __ba__wo__jinu__le
his__words__BA__1sg__infuriate__LE
His words got me infuriated. (highly transitive)
Besides morphological cues, the formal variation in constructional association provides further evidence for the distinction of semantic relations. Another piece of evidence supporting the postulation of the Affector-Affectee relation comes from the account of excessive predication in Liu and Hu (2013). The study examines the form-meaning mismatch found only in emotional expressions with an excessive marker, such as 死 si “excessively” (lit. “die”), whereby a switch of arguments in grammatical positions does not seem to render a corresponding switch of meaning. The two sentences below with a mere positional swap of subject and object do not seem to change their respective roles (ibid.: 51-52):
-
(41) a.
我羨慕死他的好運了
wo__xianmu__si__tade__hao-yun__le
1p.sg__envy__die__his__good-luck__LE
I envy his good luck to death.
-
b.
他的好運羨慕死我了
tade__hao-yun__xianmu__si__wo__le
his__good-luck__envy__die__1p.sg__LE
His good luck made me envious to death.
Notice that although the second sentence is translated as an English causative, there is no causative marking involved in the Chinese sentence. The only formal difference is the mere positional swap of the two arguments involved. While a formal change is normally accompanied by a semantic change, it is puzzling why the shifted arguments maintain the same semantic functions (Liu and Hu 2013:52):
-
(42)
Positional shift between owner-of-emotion and target-of-emotion:

Liu and Hu (2013) proposes that although the alternating expressions were traditionally thought to be semantically similar, they involved a form-meaning re-assignment and should be considered two very different constructions that project two different views of excessive emotion, involving two distinct sets of thematic relations. An excessive emotion can be expressed either as an sentient state in the excessive degree construction (EDC) that encodes the typical Experiencer-to-Stimulus relation or as an impactive event in the excessive impact construction (EIC) that highlights the forceful relation between Affector and Affectee. The two constructions are evidenced by distributional asymmetry in participating verbs and temporal collocates. It is found that only DIC may take verbs of perceptual effect or physical action (such as 酸 suan “sour” or 寫 xie “write”) and collocate more with temporally-situated specifiers (such as 剛才 gangcai “just now,” 今天 jintian “today”). The proposed constructional distinction helps to confirm the semantically distinct relation between Affector and Affectee, which finds its extended use in excessive expressions.
Distinction in lexical status
The mechanisms involved in semantic role shift also have a consequence on lexical status. As mentioned above, due to the lack of equivalents to some English Stimulus-subject verbs, the Mandarin causative construction is drawn upon as the basic template for coining Stimulus-headed predicates. The constructional causative [Stim-CAU-Exp-V] with an overt causative marker is utilized as a template to derive lexically incorporated causatives with an Experiencer-subject verb. As also exemplified in 20 above, these semi-lexicalized causatives preserve the syntactic template with a generic, impersonal Experiencer 人 ren “person” in the sequence [CAU-ren-V]:
-
(43)
Semi-lexicalized causatives preserving the syntactic template:
The paraphrasic lexical causative allows an Experiencer-subject verb to be used with a Stimulus-subject, formally modeling upon the causative template. There are two unique features that set it apart from constructional causative, i.e., a full-fledged, referentially specified causative construction. First, when a degree modifier 很 hen is used, it occurs in front of the paraphrasic unit to keep the lexical phrase intact, instead of occurring before the predicate (e.g., 他很[令人失望] ta hen [ling-ren-shiwang] “He is very disappointing.”). Second, the impersonal referent 人ren “person” is used to represent a generic, referentially underspecified Experiencer that is a required argument in the causative construction. The reduced referential specificity signals a type of argument demotion and decreased valence since the impersonal Experiencer is morphologically fixed, semantically bleached, and syntactically non-modifiableFootnote 22. The invariant sequence [CAU-ren-V] has two morphologically open slots: the initial slot for a causative marker (most frequently with 令 ling) and the final slot for an Experiencer-subject predicate. The semi-lexicalized causative is illustrative of the unique status of Stimulus-subject EPs in Mandarin as most of them are syntactically derived and morphologically open. Despite of a small number of fully lexicalized intransitive EPs (e.g., 枯燥 kuzao “dull,” 恐怖 kongbu “horrible” in 20a), the majority of Stimulus-subject EPs are morphologically transparent by modeling upon a variety of constructional templates, preserving the original arrays of argument expression (cf. Liu and Chang 2009). Below is a brief summary:
-
(44)
Syntactic templates preserved in Mandarin Stimulus-subject predicates:
-
a.
Causative: [ling-ren-V] “CAU-person-VExp-subj”:
-
b.
Transitive: [Vtrans-ren] “Vtrans + person”:
-
c.
Modal + V: [ke-V] “V-able”
-
d.
Possessive: [you-N] “have + N”
These semi-lexicalized forms can be viewed as lexicalized constructions
Footnote 23 or constructionalized lemmas as they directly map constructional patterns unto lexical patterns, showing the syntactic and semantic interdependency between lexical and constructional entities. According to Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 1997, 2005), constructions are considered as form-meaning pairing units, similar to lexical entries. The lexical-constructional interplay manifested in Mandarin as discussed above clearly illustrates the inter-connectedness between lexicon and grammar along the same continuum of form-meaning mapping constructs, supporting the constructional view of grammar:
-
(45)
the interconnectedness of lexical and constructional entities:

The intriguing interactions between lexical and constructional patterning will be further explored with regard to form-meaning pairing relations in polysemous predicates in Mandarin.